4 ms·

It sounds like you're lucky enough to have not experienced micro management, but instead close support. Micromanagement plays out as a constant barrage of need

It sounds like you're lucky enough to have not experienced micro management, but instead close support. Micromanagement plays out as a constant barrage of needing to be updated on every single detail that you work on. It's immensely tiring, and essentially comes from the manager not really trusting you and exercising too much control. They need to know about every action you take and how long is it taking (and why is it taking X long). It's horrible and drives people to look elsewhere. Project managers also fail badly at this. They badly manage the customer and try always be a 'yes' man to every whim they have, and end up driving the engineers crazy by wanting constant updates hour by hour.

Aromasin 7y ago
I'd say it's very much more close to a scale than a binary "good/bad" when it comes to micro-management. Sure, I don't want to have to explain myself every hour as to how things are going, but I likewise I don't want to have to track down my manager to get managed. With my new manager, by him checking in with me more frequently to see how things are going I can gauge my performance better from his reaction, pick up on errors I've done early on in the process that I wouldn't have spotted myself, and build a better dialogue with him. Frankly, if this comes from the manager not trusting me then I don't blame him; he shouldn't - I'm an idiotic 20-something year old. I haven't built that framework of expertise where I can do a job without error or guidance. Conversely, a 'hands-off' boss for me meant that I'd be working all day, only to hand in the work and find out I'd done something completely wrong and needed to re-do things from scratch. I might be doing a job as I've read in the spec, but it turns out there's some common practice way of completing it that I'm just expected to know right off the bat. I wouldn't know what the intended outcome of a project was, because I had never completed a project before. Micro-management is like captaining a boat. If the skipper constantly corrects the course, he'll exhaust the crew - but if he doesn't correct enough, the boat can veer off rapidly with no one at the helm.

Aromasin 7y ago

I'd say it's very much more close to a scale than a binary "good/bad" when it comes to micro-management. Sure, I don't want to have to explain myself every hour as to how things are going, but I likewise I don't want to have to track down my manager to get managed. With my new manager, by him checking in with me more frequently to see how things are going I can gauge my performance better from his reaction, pick up on errors I've done early on in the process that I wouldn't have spotted myself, and build a better dialogue with him. Frankly, if this comes from the manager not trusting me then I don't blame him; he shouldn't - I'm an idiotic 20-something year old. I haven't built that framework of expertise where I can do a job without error or guidance. Conversely, a 'hands-off' boss for me meant that I'd be working all day, only to hand in the work and find out I'd done something completely wrong and needed to re-do things from scratch. I might be doing a job as I've read in the spec, but it turns out there's some common practice way of completing it that I'm just expected to know right off the bat. I wouldn't know what the intended outcome of a project was, because I had never completed a project before. Micro-management is like captaining a boat. If the skipper constantly corrects the course, he'll exhaust the crew - but if he doesn't correct enough, the boat can veer off rapidly with no one at the helm.